↓ Skip to main content

Where’s the problem? Considering Laing and Esterson’s account of schizophrenia, social models of disability, and extended mental disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Where’s the problem? Considering Laing and Esterson’s account of schizophrenia, social models of disability, and extended mental disorder
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9413-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Cooper

Abstract

In this article, I compare and evaluate R. D. Laing and A. Esterson's account of schizophrenia as developed in Sanity, Madness and the Family (1964), social models of disability, and accounts of extended mental disorder. These accounts claim that some putative disorders (schizophrenia, disability, certain mental disorders) should not be thought of as reflecting biological or psychological dysfunction within the afflicted individual, but instead as external problems (to be located in the family, or in the material and social environment). In this article, I consider the grounds on which such claims might be supported. I argue that problems should not be located within an individual putative patient in cases where there is some acceptable test environment in which there is no problem. A number of cases where such an argument can show that there is no internal disorder are discussed. I argue, however, that Laing and Esterson's argument-that schizophrenia is not within diagnosed patients-does not work. The problem with their argument is that they fail to show that the diagnosed women in their study function adequately in any environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Lecturer 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 30%
Social Sciences 5 17%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,115,867
of 24,996,701 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#54
of 322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,220
of 318,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,996,701 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.